Pokie reform will help people know when to fold ‘em

mick says:

06:39am | 08/12/11

What a dumb self interest comment.

If clubs have $20 million to throw at an advertising campaign then the ‘going broke’ line is a lie….as we all know it is. 

One has to agree with father Riley who does not have a vested interest in this matter.  Here is a man who has dedicated himself to helping others, something that TChong should do a bit of so that he can develop some empathy with those who by addiction are unable to make informed choices.  I thank the Lord that there are people like Father Riley who are trying to help others.  The world needs more people like this.

Whether the reforms go far enough or not is debatable.  But one cannot help but see the human side or the results as families are torn apart and homes sold to pay the clubs who so willingly take the life savings and toil of our fellow citizens.

I have the utmost respect for Father Riley.  Governments need to do what is good for society, not pander to idiots who expect that people should be assisted in ruining their own lives and those of their families.

Nathan says:

07:13am | 08/12/11

@Mick
I agree with the points you made and still have allot of respect for Father Riley the work he does is incredible but i don’t know why he had to become a defacto face for the clubs campaign, i very much doubt he is in their corner

TChong says:

07:20am | 08/12/11

Mick- you taking time out from your volunteer work at a Darfur orphanage. ?
May be you should , develope empathy blah, blah, blah,
You reckon CR is out to help problem gamblers by backing the clubs ?
How?
How does supporting the clubs, who dont want regulation , which is what CR is doing- supporting those very clubs that have aided “families torn apart and homes sold to pay the clubs…”
You seem to fail to understand that CR is advocating the clubs continue to be able do this.
He is being financed by the clubs to spruik on their behalf.
You believe the clubs just gave him money out of ultrism ?
Want to by a bridge ?, got one just for someone like you at Millers Point.

dovif says:

07:34am | 08/12/11

TChong

LOL, How is this going to stop problem gamblers? The issue is problems gamble already know they have an issue, but they refuse to do something about it.

This legistlation won’t stop them losing $1,200 an hour, since they can nominate any amount they want to gamble, this won’t stop they getting multiple cards in friend’s/ family’s names. Problem gamblers finds ways around their family/work to gamble and they will easily find ways around this legislation.

What this will stop is me putting $20 in a machine for 5 minutes of fun

This is just a stupid legislation, which will actually cost Australia $3 billion, without doing any good, It is typical policy by an incompetant government, who sold Australians out to minor interest

Maybe T-Troll should stand as an ALP candidate, since he is incapable to say anything apart from the ALP press release.

mick says:

08:05am | 08/12/11

I think that you’ll find that Father Riley is not in the clubs’ corner.  Whether or not he has been conned is unknown and the writer of this article may have gotten it wrong as well.  Don’t know.  What I do know is that Riley treats the end results of clubs which gratefully take addicts’ homes and crack their families wide open with barely a second thought.

You need to get a glass ‘half full’ TChong, not totally empty.  Look up the word ‘empathy’ and hope that you are never on the receiving end of life wishing that somebody would give a damn whilst being kicked in the guts by those who don’t.

Sarah says:

08:26am | 08/12/11

@Mick
Good points in your comments - I agree with them.

@TChong - he was dead right - your initial comment was dumb self interest. You’ve just gone and blindly attacked Father Chris Riley because he doesn’t agree with your stupid Labour party and their crap policy that Andrew Wilkie is forcing on them.

Its a disgrace that the entire country is held to ransom and is forced to adopt policies that a couple of Independents scream for - when they only represent a miniscule portion of the general population.

Who do we have to thank for that? Why Gillard - the deceitful, lying, self-interested, scheming, manipulative, yet entirely completely, absolutely and utterly HOPELESS prime minister that we have had foisted on us.

And you, TChong - support her and her stupid party? Mate - you need help.

TChong says:

08:27am | 08/12/11

Mick
where and why do you get this “no empathy"from?
You know as much about me, as I do about you- diddly squat.
But all that is totally irrevalent.
I empathise and sympathise with “families torn apart…“forced to sell homes etc- all the fallout you list.
We both agree its no good, and as you stated , its caused by people gambling at the clubs.
So, I’ll ask again.
How does CR, spruiking for the clubs right to fleece the punters, ( a problem you identified) help problem gamblers.?
CR doing wonderous work in other areas, doesnt explain it.
Maybe you can.?
BTW remember in CRs own words, this is all about standing up to Wilkie.

mick says:

08:46am | 08/12/11

I’d like to get it straight from the horse’s mouth, Riley himself.  The problem I have with reporters is that what has been written appears to contradict the life of the man and what he does for others for no return to himself.  I wish I could do half as much for people.

Wilkie has had the guts to do what Liberal and Labor both fail to do.  Politics should never be about ensuring that you don’t offend people so that you are re-elected at the next election -  that is personal glory.  It should always be about doing the best job in the interests of society as a whole.  This is why voters need to stop voting Liberal and Labor and start picking the best candidate.  I’m not holding me breath!!

TChong says:

08:49am | 08/12/11

Sarah
Please outline what elected positions CR has obtained in the local, state or federal level of politics.
Whether you like it or not, Wilkie has stood for, and won enough votes to be in parliament- thats democracy.
CR, despite all his past work is not in politics . Big differnce.
Just repeat for your understanding- Wilkie is an elected politician, CR isnt.
CR has every right to protest, but if he wants to go about playing politics , maybe he should stand against Wilkie on behalf of the Cuibs.
That would be democratic, wouldnt it?
As for the rest of your post about Labor and Gillard-  yawn. No interest to me.

Will says:

08:55am | 08/12/11

Mick I think you’re confused mate.

You know CR is on the side of the clubs on this one right?

You talk about having “empathy with those who by addiction are unable to make informed choices” and question whether the reforms go far enough but CR doesn’t want the reforms at all.

I’m not following your argument.

Will says:

08:55am | 08/12/11

Mick I think you’re confused mate.

You know CR is on the side of the clubs on this one right?

You talk about having “empathy with those who by addiction are unable to make informed choices” and question whether the reforms go far enough but CR doesn’t want the reforms at all.

I’m not following your argument.

yourname says:

09:09am | 08/12/11

So it’s all about choice, is it, dovif? Those selfish problem gamblers simply refuse to pull their socks up? I gather you think “addiction” is just a word in the dictionary that has no relation to anything in the real world, then?

yourname says:

09:12am | 08/12/11

When I want to know what the epitome of “self interest” is, Sarah, I will go and take a lesson from the profit-motivated clubs you defend.

Bruce says:

09:40am | 08/12/11

Do not really care what they do to pokies. However, I am offended by Wilkie being able to dictate and hold the government to ransom with his ‘small man view” of the world to the ALP. I think you will find that most ALP politicians just wish this whole issue would just go away.

badrinath says:

09:50am | 08/12/11

So dovif you say that the measures won’t work, even though the clubs are so scared of it that they are stumping up 20 mil (minimum) to stop it. Oh that’s right they are also crusading for the liberties of all Australians - my f@#cking heros. (And dovif, how defunct can you be claiming that it will stop you putting in $20 for 5 min of fun - what shite)

And Mick, when it comes down to it, because Father Chris does good, you will not believe he is in the wrong till he stands in front of you and admits to the views that are being widely reported as his. You respect him, he is a good guy…....... pokie reform must be bad. Brilliant.

And Sarah, this is a system of democracy - this is how it works. Deal with it.

Its a disgrace that our country went to war in Iraq for a neo-con motivation, took part in the killing of so many Iraqis and found none of the bullshit we were looking for over there. But our system of democracy meant the people we voted in were there to decide - and they did. Self interest? - you hate Gillard Sarah, so why cant the same be said about your argument.

I don’t incidently agree with T chongs call on Riley, I do believe there is more to his position than meets they eye, but it does not mean he is right to be in a position of supporting those in need, and claiming that this ‘well-supported’ measure is a bad idea. It just adds the first honest decent face to the campaign, unless you call Packer or Clubs Australia an honest face.

dovif says:

10:59am | 08/12/11

badrinath

As I explained in my comment, problems gamblers already hide from themselve that they have a problem, they do it behind the back of family, friends, work etc. They are going to find way around a pre commitment cap, especially one which allow them to name $1,000,000 as an amount they can afford to lose

Who it will stop is me wanting my 5 minute of fun at $20 dollars, since I will have to fill in paperwork for an id card, and tell the world I can afford to lose $20.

The last time I checked I do not have a gambling problem, I have committed no offense and I should not be made to feel like a criminal

badrinath says:

12:03pm | 08/12/11

But dovif, by your rationale, we need not rstrict access to heroin, or coccaine or mary jane, because people will find a way to do these things, esp when they have a ‘problem’. But we do have laws and regulation - like on alcohol and how much you are allowed to be served - because in our society we agree to guidelines to assist our living together, and because the lines of causation, responsibility and effect are complicated. (Plus the line of responsibility for a million dollar limit, when set in a sober state, holds the individual to account - a good thing.)

No offense, but if you will not have your 5 min of fun because you feel like a criminal - I am not sure if i should really care. Your loss is 5 min of fun because you feel such a strong sense of injustice…. so? What, the ARL will fold because so many people will respond like you? Besides you could still have your 5 min of fun (likely to be 10 min in this case) if you go use a machine that is not going to take $1 per hit. Not such a big deal in reality.

The argument against the reform is one of principle, not one of genuine outcomes. And the principle is genuinely flawed - based entirely on the concept of liberties, liberties that are an absolute joke when considered relatively with the rest of the world.

I am not asking for a Nanny state, but am asking for restrictions or stops that prevent the clubs from freely utilising the art of deception, marketing and advantage to suck people with problems dry of their money - and the money of their families, or the victims of their crime.

Would you really stand in parliament and fight for the will of the all powerfull clubs by expousing your personal right to specifically use a $1 machine without being asked to sign a piece of paper? Would you do this consciously believing that your cause is so full of justice and the call of liberty and freedom? From your stance I imagine so, and I find that strange considering the world we live in today. There are much better fights to fight out there if you really are believer of such principles.

dovif says:

07:56am | 08/12/11

Agree completely

If the productivity commission thinks problem gambling is an issue, wasted $3 billion on something of marginal benefit would be attrociously bad

More education and no atm at venues would do much more to solve the problem

subotic says:

09:09am | 08/12/11

@acotrel, that’s a way “too bloody intelligent” solution.

As if either politicians or a religionist could ever see the common bloody sense in something so dead easy and so bloody smart.

You fool, you.

gobsmack says:

06:47am | 08/12/11

@Tim
“I’m big enough to look after myself, why should the government want to control where I spend my money?”
So you’d be in favour of legalising heroin?

Tim says:

08:00am | 08/12/11

gobsmack,
yes I would be OK with legalising drugs.

Why should it be any business of mine what other people put into their own bodies as long as they’re not harming anyone else?
However, if we went down that route there would have to be a rethink on the responsibility side. People would have to be far more responsible for the consequences of their actions than is currently the case in our society.

jehsi says:

08:08am | 08/12/11

@gobsmack
what a moronic brainwashed comment ... the government allow the selling of cigarettes and alcohol that kill thousands per year .. not to mention the affects alcohol abuse puts on families.. but who cares right put some warnings on them and raise the tax on them under the guise of deterring people to buy the product and everything is fine ... but gambling is so much more dangerous and evil we must regulate it so we know where you are how much you gamble when you gamble how long you gamble ... and a pre determined amount that YOU set… that might work the first time but im telling you now if an alcoholic runs out of booze the next time he buys more so he doesn’t go short again ... people addicted to gambling will take the same measures

yourname says:

08:21am | 08/12/11

Can I assume then, Tim, that you don’t have children? Or if you do, can I assume that you would be happy about one of them dying from an overdose? None of your business?

mick says:

08:37am | 08/12/11

Sometimes you have to protect people from themselves.  When governments don’t they get criticised for not doing so. 

The truth is that the legislation has been watered down just like the mining tax legislation and does not go far enough.  The whinging punters who will be ‘inconvenienced’ need put a sock in it as it will be no big deal for them…..even if the Alan Jones’ of society are trotted out with their gloom and doom rhetoric.

Blind Freddy says:

08:59am | 08/12/11

@ Tim

“Why should it be any business of mine what other people put into their own bodies as long as they’re NOT harming anyone else?”

For me the harming of others - like their children (and the tax payer) is the point. According to the above quote it is yours as well - so what is your point?

gobsmack says:

09:25am | 08/12/11

@jehsi
My post was a question, not a comment.
As you seem to have no grasp of basic punctuation, it’s not surprising that distinction is lost on you.

mick says:

09:30am | 08/12/11

The point is the day you are down and out will be the day you understand the value of compassion and helping people who are incapable of helping themselves.  It may be not our business to care but Christians, the few who still exist, should care and the rest of society should give a damn lest we all forget what we are and turn into animals.

This time of year more than any other is about caring for others, not just in indulging ourselves.

Tim says:

10:15am | 08/12/11

Yourname,
what does kids dying of drug overdoses have to do with legalising drugs? There’s plenty of overdoses right now and drugs are still illegal aren’t they?

Mick,
“Sometimes you have to protect people from themselves.  When governments don’t they get criticised for not doing so.”

I assume you’ll be all for banning alcohol, cigarettes, any high fat, sugar or calorie food. etc etc. then?

You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.

Blind Freddy,
the poker machines aren’t directly responsible for harming anyone’s children, the people putting all their money through them are. And why do you assume that all gambling addicts have families and children?
The extra taxes (above normal) paid by pokie operators also more than cover the social cost of poker machines.
As I said above, I would be OK with forcing clubs to provide more money and services for problem gambling services.

Bertrand says:

11:38am | 08/12/11

With reference to the legalising drugs / poker machine reform comparisons.

I have argued on this site for the legalisation of drugs, but I have also made it clear that one of the big advantages of this would be that the industry could be tightly regulated, with very strict controls over the quality / ingredients / strength of drugs available. I certainly wouldn’t be advocating a free for all, as this would simply be replicating the problems we experience under the prohibition model.

It is the mistake we made when legalising gambling and, particularly pokies. We went from a prohibition model where pokies were operated by crime gangs, to a new model where they were legal but subject to very little regulation. The result of this laissez fairer approach to legalised pokies has been the development of an incredibly damaging industry. We see machines developed with the assistance of psychologists, so that they tap into the reward centre of our brains and help induce addiction. Very few other countries allow these types of machines because of these design features.

Now that the federal government is trying to put in place the smallest bit o regulation we have people up in arms screaming big brother and invasion of liberty.

As with every potentially dangerous vice our governments policy should be to put in place a framework that acknowledges people will always partake in it, but at the same time limits the overall harm of this vice on individuals who partake as well as society as a whole.

They got it wrong when they legalised pokies and this reform is a small step towards getting the balance right between allowing people a legal avenue to indulge in their vice and reducing the negative impacts this vice can cause.

Tim says:

12:00pm | 08/12/11

Betrand,
you think pokies are run with very little regulation?
Really?
Go talk to your local club manager about it, I’m sure he’ll tell you different. The government already has very strict regulations on the operation of poker machine licences.

Blind Freddy says:

01:05pm | 08/12/11

@Tim

I didn’t say that the poker macjhines were “directly” harming anyone. You wrote “Why should it be any business of mine what other PEOPLE put into their own bodies”. Heroin never “directly” affects others either- but the heroin addicts themselves do.

Children do not choose the circumstances into which they are born- and if some children require protection by reducing the opportunities for their addict parents to squander their fortunes and futures - then I’m all for it.

Bertrand says:

02:57pm | 08/12/11

Tim,
I probably could have been a bit cleaer when I talked about regulation. Of course there are strict laws governing who can get licenses to pokies and the laws governing how they operate their machines.

However, there is a lack of regulation when it comes to the type of machines out there and, specifically, the way these machines utilise their gameplay to trigger responses in the human brain that are known to lead to addiction in some people. Similarly, there is a lack of regulation concerning how much money can be fed into these machines at a time.

In the UK for example, the ‘fruit’ machines are regulated in terms of the size of the bets allowed and in terms of the gameplay. In fact, they must reward skill and not simply be games of chance.

Requiring people to pre-commit an amount of money they are willing to lose is not impinging on anyone’s freedoms, but is one small step that can be taken to regulate the ability of these machines to suck more money out of people’s wallets than they are willing to lose.

Just as a properly implemented legal drug policy would place limits on the type of hyro-weed being sold, or require sellers of MDMA not to cut their drug with poisonous substances, poker machine reform must focus on reducing the pokies’ ability to harm their users.

yourname says:

09:17am | 08/12/11

Even the best person can make a mistake and when they do it is quite legitimate to criticise that mistake, without criticising the person themselves.

Ando says:

11:21am | 08/12/11

I am not sold on mandatory per-commitment but no one is criticizing the good CR does, in fact they seem to start every criticism with highlighting the good he does. To suggest he is beyond criticism is ridiculous.

KH says:

11:57am | 08/12/11

There is no mistake.  My understanding is that his charities are supported by the clubs - speaking against reforms would be biting the hand that feeds him.  He should at least be honest about his conflict of interest.  Unless he really just has no idea…................

yourname says:

08:19am | 08/12/11

Effing brilliant!!!

mick says:

09:11am | 08/12/11

Brilliant.  The clubs will hate this.

Dan Webster says:

01:15pm | 08/12/11

LOL, thanks for posting that. I was feeling a little bit down but that made me smile.

St. Michael says:

04:08pm | 08/12/11

If that’s the sketch about how WA has no pokies except at Burswood Casino, a word from Perth: we find the entire debate hilarious over here, because we ain’t got ‘em and nobody wants ‘em—not even the clubs themselves.

Strewth, easterners, do we have to pay for you all *and* tell you how to run your clubs as well?

SimonFromLakemba says:

10:53am | 08/12/11

Religion, the biggest con job

Tim says:

08:29am | 08/12/11

or close, which is far more likely.

subotic says:

09:05am | 08/12/11

@Mahhrat, and how is “people in this world who cannot look after themselves” suddenly my problem, and my tax paying dollar responsibility to keep picking these buggers up every time they fall down?

Sure, I’m no sociopath, I have a heart, and do feel saddened by the situation THEY have gotten themselves into. But why is it MY problem to always fix?

I can fix that crap straight away without punishing the rest of society - STOP giving the buggers help & handouts.

“Oh but they’re sick.”

I’m sick too. Sick of always having to see society punished for the sins of one damn person.

I’m expected to be responsible, why aren’t they?

Mahhrat says:

09:08am | 08/12/11

@Tim, then they close!

If we want to talk about interest rate whingers socialising the costs while privatising their profits through their asset capitalisation, then the same argument applies to businesses as well.

I accept an argument that mandatory committment is not a great solution.  You are right in that we should be wary of punishing everyone for the illnesses of a few.

But as I said, pokie addiction harms the entire family, not just the one pushing their wage into the slots.

The principle of the freedom to choose your own destruction presupposes the ability to make a free choice.  Addiction removes that choice, pure and simple.  I’m sure if they could, they would stop playing.  I’ve seen enough addiction on all kinds of things to know that it’s just not that simple.

yourname says:

09:25am | 08/12/11

You may have a heart, subotic, but nothing in your comment supports that assertion. It is a heartless comment—and a thoughtless one. Your solution of refusing help to the sick would see people begging—and dying—on the streets. Why do people help each other? If you need that question answered, then I would suggest that you may indeed be a sociopath—I say that as an inference based on your comments, not as an insult.

Mahhrat says:

09:49am | 08/12/11

@subotic, because we live in a society!

You feel you’re “responsible” for yourself?  Do you farm all your own products?  Do you butcher your own meat?  Cut your own hair?  Provide your own security?

Of course not.  We are a society, and we base our society upon the fact that we all chip in together for the provision of security, health and culture.

If we don’t directly involve ourselves in policing, law or health provision etc, then we contribute via our taxes.

If you accept that argument, you’re left with how best to utilise a finite resource pool.  The government is theoretically responsible with ensuring the balance between the rule of law and the freedom to do whatever you like.

Given we have limited resources, how do you propose we achieve a balance between individual freedom and social cohesion in this instance?  Prevention, be it through mandatory commitment or otherwise, is demonstrably cheaper than treating not just the sick individuals, but also the true victims - their family or victims of crimes they might commit to support their addictions.

It’s doing the most good as possible.  If that means sacrificing some autonomy, then I’m happy to do so.  In the case of pokies, they are a social evil we could do without.  That’s subjective, sure, but it’s no less relevant than “Stuff them, they should know better”.

subotic says:

10:04am | 08/12/11

@yourname, I assume you’re not a worker or a tax payer. Believe it or not, there are dozens of tax payer funded and charitable community resources out there to assist and support the disadvantaged within the strata of Australian society. Both self inflicted disadvantage or otherwise.

What gets on my nerves is that whenever some small demographic screws up, the rest of society gets punished. Why? We’ve already set up so many damn free public assistance programs, community centres, etc. Is that not enough? Do we really need more? Maybe we do. I don’t know.

But what I DO know is that nobody in Australia NEEDS to be dying out on the street from gambling. People choose to spend all their money. And don’t come at me with “it’s an illness/ addiction” crap. Got an addiction? Go get it treated. For free. Plenty of places around to help with that. Australia is one of the few countries on the damn planet that has tax payer funded programs to help with this stuff.

Heartless would be to say “stuff them all, hope they die, and give me my tax payer money back from any clinic that’s been set up to help these poor sods”. That’d be heartless.

But to encourage people to take responsibility for their own actions? Heartless?

Bugger your communistic view. I’m neither communist nor socialist. This is (was) a democratic capitalist country where you can actually choose to make good if you want to.

If you want some pie-in-the-sky utopian agrarian based society, then go take a trip to Cambodia and ask them if that crap works.

Tim says:

10:25am | 08/12/11

Mahhrat,
as I’ve already said, the extra gambling taxes paid by pokie operators more than cover the social cost of problem gambling.
They more than pay their way.

I understand that there has to be a limit and that we can’t have a perfectly free society because some people are simply not capable of looking after themselves but I will always err on the side of more freedoms rather than more restrictions. I think the article by the young Argentinian the other day was a good view from an outsiders perspective of how restrictive our society has actually become.

I’m all for helping people who have gambling problems but I believe these methods should be more targetted at the people who have the problem with less collateral damage (clubs, regular punters, community groups etc).

Mahhrat says:

11:16am | 08/12/11

@Tim, I accept that and I think we’re just talking about drawing the line in separate places.

I work in the Alcohol, Tobacco and other Drug industry.  I see how little resourced the sector is to deal with THOSE addictions, in spite of the “revenue” received particularly from alcohol and tobacco taxes.

While the figures might look good, the results on the ground tell a different story.  There are usually wait lists for these services, so it’s not funding the cost of treatment.

I’ve not got the stats re gambling, but given how under-resourced I have heard the gambling helpline is, I wonder if they’re in the same boat.

I get that some people will always self-destruct.  It’s just human nature that sometimes we fail at things.  What really offends me with arguments like Subotic puts forward is that the logical conclusion is one of dehumanity - that actual human beings could die, and that argument (not the person) just doesn’t care.

subotic says:

11:39am | 08/12/11

@Mahhrat, just 2 questions - Where and when does individual responsibility come into play?

Or can I assume that, bugger it, I should just leave my job, blow all my cash, screw my family, and have an expectation that you and society owe me a leg up once i hit the bottom coz that’s what living in a democratic society is all about, free rides for f-ups?

Have I become dehumanised? Maybe I’m just sick of seeing the many punished for the sins of a few. All the damn time.

If gambling is oh so bad, then ban the bloody thing outright.

And for the record, no, I don’t gamble. I work too bloody hard for my money to give it all away to goddamn government. Like they don’t take enough off us all already.

Tim says:

12:02pm | 08/12/11

Mahhrat,
I think we can both agree that there should be better funding for addiction services.
I have no problem with providing more and better services for those people who admit they have a problem and want to help themselves.

Mahhrat says:

01:27pm | 08/12/11

@subotic, that’s something I grapple with dealing with some clients here.  We’re a volunteer service, so theoretically, these people come to us because they want our help - that ‘individual responsibility’ thing is something they’re aware of, even if they’re not doing it quite right yet.

The break even point for me is the realisation that every person is different and needs different things.  It comes back to the notion of “fairness”, which just can’t ever apply to the human race. I have no doubt that the only thing separating me from an abusive miscreant is the love and affection and good family I was blessed with.

Most of what I understand behind the counselling we do is exactly what you describe - helping people to develop the tools necessary to become responsible individuals.

That’s kinda the catch-22.  There will always be those that simply will not - and willfully will not - be responsible for themselves.  I agree that there must be a point, and that point is when you know addiction is not talking, but a wilful desire to be the bludger you describe.  But that’s just my point of view.

The problem is that for those that do want help - and I reckon that’s the vast majority of those with problems - we have a very limited ability, yet it’s an incredibly difficult thing we’re asking them to do.

I have an eating problem - I eat too much.  I’m losing weight right now, but it is literally taking everything I have to remain on the “straight and narrow”.  Add abuse-ridden childhoods, a lack of compassion from the community, unrealistic expectations on people in their situation?  I don’t know how I’d manage it.  Many people obviously don’t.

subotic says:

02:44pm | 08/12/11

@Mahhrat, don’t think I can’t see or understand your point - I do.

I guess at the end of day I personally feel each member of society is responsible for their own action/ in-action, and at some point the rest of society shouldn’t be expected to carry them forever.

We all carry the burdens of life, not all of have the help that some people appear to get handed to them on silver platters, and for the rest of us poor schmucks, we just get told we have to suck it up and carry our load plus theirs.

I don’t hate people, but I hate people….

Girl incognito says:

09:48am | 08/12/11

I agree. Not my fault that some people cannot control themselves. I set a limit of say $10 when I do play the pokies which isn’t that often and once my moneys gone that’s it. But hey if I win, great! I collect my winnings and walk away. It’s called taking responsibility for yourself and it’s not that hard to do.

Louise says:

10:26am | 08/12/11

I think they are referring to the Problem Gamblers there. It won’t work to curb their behaviour at all, if your that addicted you will go to the ends of the earth to get a license, set a high limit and continue to reset it and if that doesn’t work they will go home and gamble online. Your not going to stop those people sadly. It will stop the recreational guys who put a few dollars in after dinner or before a show and that’s where the revenue loss will come from, the majority of people who are healthy social punters.

yourname says:

09:31am | 08/12/11

It is part of the definition of a well-functioning society that all parts of that society receive according to their need from the society as a whole. If that principle is abandoned, then we do not have a society, but a jungle where it is every person for themselves and devil take the hindmost. Is that what you want?

Steve says:

09:41am | 08/12/11

You’re a charming individual. I just hope that due to unforeseen circumstances affecting you’re family - you’re not reliant on others. Because in the end, it’s not their problem to help out.

Arrogance and lack of empathy is astounding.

Ianc says:

01:28pm | 16/12/11

Wonderful Subotic, in 3 or 4 posts you have evolved from an apologetic sociopath into a selfish fool.

Matt says:

12:32pm | 08/12/11

Because the evidence speaks for itself. Pokies are the root of all problem gamblers gambling problems for >95% of players. You play a Pokie more than once a week and that is the single biggest predictor of being a problem gambler. Pokies are a game of chance set up in a way to fool people that they can play them with skill - it is all a big scam.